Alert 2/9/07 Gas Chambers Continue – Time
to Speak Out!
You will all be apprised of events surrounding defeat of our bills in the General Assembly, in particular the bill to ban gas chambers. Commentary on gas is below. The overall review will be sent later.
Teresa Dockery has from the outset repeatedly and successfully opposed our bill to ban gas chambers.
Ms. Dockery was previously
associated with the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies (VFHS) and before
that with the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders (we are told), so
Ms. Dockery has roamed the halls of
Two brief notes about Del. Orrock. First, he dislikes me for observing (after Del. Orrock refused to support our gas chamber ban three years ago) that our interests might better be served by supporting his challenger two years ago for the Republican nomination in his district. Second, Del. Orrock admonished those who came at 7:00 A.M for the Ag Subcommittee hearing that excessive citizen contact with his office would cause him to look with disfavor on bills so championed. Del. Orrock is polished, congenial, smart but regrettably a defender of the traditions that produce the substantial animal welfare expenses, excess pet population and virtually wholesale euthanasia.
As to Ms. Dockery, her opposition to a gas chamber ban is hard to understand. VFHS publicly supported the ban. And Dr. Tonya Higgins, a vet on the VFHS board who had supported use of gas chambers as theoretically humane, publicly withdrew her support nearly a year ago. So, Ms. Dockery may be territorial. Whatever the case, the mantra is gas chambers should not be banned legislatively (at least not while some still use them), never mind how gruesome, inhumane, expensive, and unsafe they may be.
To defeat the bill last time
(2006), Ms. Dockery testified before Del. Orrock's subcommittee that she
was negotiating with all 8 jurisdictions then using gas and had
funds for them to transition to injection (EBI), which she said would
occur by 2007. So, no need for legislation. We kept the pressure on
(Del. Orrock actually said to us in a meeting with him last fall that the reason
the remaining jurisdictions would not transition is that they disliked me
personally - I'm not making this up, I assure you), and 4 more
stopped. Ms. Dockery actually did get funds from the Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) but apparently not for all 8 jurisdictions. We are
told that
To defeat the bill this time, Ms. Dockery apparently wrote to Del. Orrock (or perhaps was asked to write to Del. Orrock) that $75,000 in funds was available this time to the 4 remaining jurisdictions to encourage their transition from gas to EBI. The letter appears to be secret, since Del. Orrock refused to release it to the bill’s patron, Del. Jim Scott, or anyone else not on the subcommittee. We believe (from Del. Orrock's public remarks about the letter) that subcommittee members received copies (or had all or parts read to them - we aren't sure of exact circumstances), but see Del. Saxman's letter of 1/26/07 (below). Apparently, the money doesn't exist, if Del. Saxman has it right.
Again, on the strength of Ms. Dockery's representations, the bill was defeated.
How could one take issue with the apparent generosity of someone either giving the money or getting the money to make this change?
Here's why. Because Del. Cox (the Committee Chair) opposed the gas chamber ban legislation three years ago by saying the promise of money (which came from us at that time) wasn't compelling or certain enough to base legislation on. And because we've been down this road before. And because a compromise to ban gas legislatively by 10/08 (instead of 10/07) was defeated by the subcommittee in a lopsided vote.
Am I too motivated by sorrow for wasted lives and inhumanity to say all this is wrong? If not, I want to see you do more than cross your fingers that a funded, voluntary transition will happen.
And are you content with your state and its legislators? 41 legislators co-patroned this bill. Ms. Dockery, the chairman and all but 2 members on the subcommittee killed it.
Are you OK with that?
Don Marro
To view a gassing,
see:
Postscript:
And thanks to our legislators, removing a collar from a hunting dog carries higher penalties than abusing a pet or taking its life.
See what Mr. Bob Kane, Del. Ed Scott and Sen. Ken Stolle wrought. Make no mistake, interfering with someone's pet or property should be verboten, but a felony? Perhaps a constitutional amendment is next.
Letter from
This is the letter from Del. Chris Saxman sent 1/26/07:
Thank you for your email. I
know many of you may be disappointed in the
outcome of HB 3004, a bill
seeking to ban the use of gas chambers. The
primary impediment to
passing such legislation is not creating an unfunded
mandate on the very few
localities that still have the gas chambers. It is
my understanding
that 4 remain in Virginia, and my office has received word
that a nonprofit
organization is working to obtain enough contributions so
that they can pay
for the needed equipment that will make gas chambers
unnecessary in the
remain 4 localities. It is certainly my understanding
that the use of
gas chambers will no longer be in use in a short period
of
time.
Again, thank you for bring your concerns to my
office.
Sincerely,
Chris
